Difference between revisions of "MassachusettsEdicts MFM1871 1873"

Revision as of 18:42, 8 August 2013

ADVICE FROM MOORE'S FREEMASONS' MONTHLY MAGAZINE

Prior to 1875, a considerable amount of Masonic jurisprudence was based on the advice and direction published in The Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, published in Boston and edited by one of the foremost Masonic authorities of the time, Rt. Wor. Charles W. Moore. While not established as edicts or rulings by Grand Masters, they were consequential in the establishment of precedents and contributed to the decisions made in later years.

Comments and views in the publication were often lengthy, but were generally based on sound reasoning that the author provided in response to inquiries from many Grand Jurisdictions.

1871

Past Masters

From Vol. XXXI, No. 2, p. 42, December 1871:

Dear Brother Moore.— The question as to what constitutes a Past Master was virtually introduced in the Grand Lodge of Virginia, at its last session by a decision of the Grand Master: viz. that "the installation of a Master-elect of a Lodge, followed by immediate resignation, will not entitle him to the rank of a Past Master who has not actually passed the Chair." In opposition to which ruling the Grand Lodge adopted the following, as reported by the committee to which the subject was referred. "Your Committee are of opinion that a Master-elect who has received the Degree of Past Master and been subsequently installed as Master of a Lodge is a Past Master without regard to the length of time he may have occupied the chair."

The point in this discussion is really whether the oath of office and the formal ceremonies incident to the installation of a Master, independent of the constitutional term of service, are of themselves sufficient to constitute the recipient a Past Master. In the decision of the Grand Master there-are two allegations ; one, that the ceremonies inducting to office do not make a Past Master, and the other, that to insure that rank there must be, in addition to the ceremonials, an occupancy of the office and a personal compliance with its duties, for a full constitutional term. Both of which positions are unquestionably correct. It seems to be a fair logical deduction, that where the constitutional regulations make the election annual, the term of service is for one year, and as the introductory ceremonies are also provided for, the acquisition of both is necessary to secure the emoluments of the office.

The practice of annual elections of officers in subordinate Lodges was probably established as a regulation early in the last century. It may possibly find its source at the annual gathering of the Craft to choose a Grand Master, even before a Grand Lodge originated. At any rate, be that as it may, it has now become a universal custom with the Craft, modified only by a difference of opinion regarding the length of time a Master should remain in office, before he is entitled to the benefits arising therefrom. While the right to resign a stational office is conceded by some Grand Lodges, it is denied by others and its awards withheld. There are very few instances, however, where the ruling so perfectly cuts off the necessity for personal service, and empowers the creation of Past Masters by a mere formal ceremony, as does this of Virginia. These conflicting regulations are more the result of diversified opinions and unscrutinized customs, than of any disposition to do violence to any old Masonic rule, and really grow out of a misconception of a well defined fundamental principle in Masonic government But still a deviation from the original design, however innocently fallen into, rarely ever adds strength or beauty to the institution. While the power may lie in a Grand Lodge to determine the prerequisite to Pastmastership, its right to violate any principle of Masonic law or usage in doing so, and particularly when its origin may be traced, as in the present case, to the earliest system of Masonic Government, is very questionable. It would be more desirable if the usage in this particular was more uniform: its incongruity not only leads to some embarrassment, but breaks in upon the harmony and symmetry of the Masonic system. In some instances, the various rulings and laws diverge so sharply, as almost to preclude the probability of a reconciliation of these conflicting views ; nor can relief be expected from this anomalous condition, unless by a general impulse the subject receives the calm and deliberate judgment of an enlightened brotherhood.

Among the ancient charges is this. "No brother can be made a Warden until he has passed the part of a Fellow Craft; nor Master until he has acted as a Warden; nor Grand Master unless he has been a Fellow Craft before his election, who is also to be noble bom, or a gentleman of the best fashion, or some eminent scholar, or some curious architect or other artist, descended of honest parents, and who is of singular great merit in the opinion of the Lodges, and further that in selecting a Deputy, the Grand Master is to choose a brother who must be then, or must have been formerly, the Master of a particular Lodge." It is evident from this special charge that merit and practical service are made a sine qua non to official positions ; no more initial ceremony could substitute its potent demand for physical duty and moral worth. Language more cogent could, scarcely have been selected to emphasize the design of the Craft of that day, to secure a proper appreciation of an official station by the occupant, and the responsibility resting upon him for fidelity and assiduity in the personal discharge of his duties.

The natural tendency of the doctrine of the Virginia Committee is, to empower a Lodge on the evening of the election, if it sees fit to confer the honor, to pass any number of Wardens and Masters, it has the time and subjects to operate upon. Under a certain condition of things in some localities, this would be a most dangerous liberty. As startling as such a proposition may be, its conclusion is inevitable. Nor is such an idea preposterous; doctrines equally strange, hurtful and absurd have been carried into practice, and their damaging effects realized. The Grand Lodge of Virginia makes the elections in its subordinate Lodges annual, and provides for filling any vacancy which may occur, but there appears to be no Regulation securing the benefits of the office against forfeiture, should the officer relinquish his duties before the termination of his official term. In consequence of this omission the benefits of the office are accorded to him by a local usage; there is no statute under which he could take refuge and claim the benefits as a right, should any questions arise as to his title to the privileges. The decision of the Grand Lodge in the case under review, has no constitutional Regulations to sustain it, beyond the force of a custom. The context of the Constitution is more strongly against it than in its favor. The annual elections fix as a consequence a yearly term of service, and although a remedy is provided, to relieve the Lodge from any embarrassment should any exigency arise, the object of the Regulations is to keep the Lodge in a healthy working trim, not to heap honors on such as may be derelict in duty. The tenor of the Constitution establishes this reasonable position. Where ever the terms "Master" and "Lodge" appear in it, may be traced the design of the law to enjoin upon the Master his personal attention to the duties of the office during the elective term; for instance, he is made the responsible custodian of the Warrant; he is to preside in the Lodge during its sessions; he is to exercise its executive functions ; he is held accountable for its lawful transactions; he is to become proficient in the work and lectures, and during his term of service holds membership in Grand Lodge. These duties and responsibilities are indicative of a personal identity with them, and mean action, and faithful labor. The Master's official obligation, although encumbered by extraneous immaterial matter, enforces an individual application, and brings more vividly,to view the responsibilities consequent upon his new relationship to the fraternity and Institution. Very many of our intelligent brethren overlook these items which so forcibly strengthen the argument of practical service, and indulge the impression that the ceremonies incident to the installation, are of themselves ample to create a Past Master, and thus impart to their theory vital reality.

The correctness of the term " Degree " as applied to the initial installation ceremony is very questionable even with its prefix "honorary." It would be questionable in a Collegiate sense, if intended to carry therewith any mark of distinction. If there was any ceremony attached to the adminstration of the Masters oath of office originally, it is not at all probable it was classed as a Degree. It assumed that character after it was incorporated among the Degrees of the Chapter, as a prerequisite to the Royal Arch Degree.. So far as the present generations may date back their personal knowledge in this matter, it is probable they have known no other form than the one at present in vogue. Many are familiar with its traditional history and ceremonial, but the oldest, who may be with us now, is scarcely old enough to have been Masons at the period when this new American work was first introduced, hence it is reasonable to expect a bias in its favor. It is principally its inconsistency, which renders its historical authenticity doubtful, and its utility questionable. It is generally known that when the Royal Arch Degree was under the control of subordinate Lodges, none but those who had regularly passed the Chair was eligible to it. That test of eligibility being originally an essential element in the qualifications of Candidates to that Degree in those bodies, it was deemed equally necessary to those seeking the Degree in Chapters upon the organization of Royal Arch Masonry. The success of the latter depended principally upon the quantity of material it could obtain to operate with. This demand could not readily be supplied. Past Masters were not made in a day, they were of a yearly production, and but here and there dotted a jurisdiction. To overcome the technical obstruction which this barrier interposed to its progress, the Past Masters Degree was constructed, when any number of nominal Past Masters were created, thus facilitating the passage of hundreds to the Royal Arch Degree. Of course to impart to this ceremony the character and tone of a Degree, there must be an imposing form, and a consistent history; both were found and elaborately decorated by the prolific imagination of the projector. This degree symbolized the service of a Master, covering the whole period of his official existence, beginning with the initial ceremony of installation and ending with his descent from the Chair. The term Past Master's Degree therefore, is perfectly consistent when applied to this Degree, when conferred in a Chapter; not so, however, when applied to the initial form given to the Master elect, before he enters upon the duties of his office.

It is scarcely probable that any one who received the Chapter Degree, in the early period of its history, ever appropriated to himself any virtue from it beyond its nominal title. The recognition of such, as Past Masters, was left for the erroneous construction of some of the brethren, who received it at a more recent date, through a misconception of the intent and character of the Degree. It is no part of York Masonry, and should receive no consideration as such from the fraternity. Whatever ceremonial may be found connected with the oath of office, was taken from the Chapter degree. If the object is to furnish by a Degree some means of identifying Past Masters, it would be more consistent to create a form of ceremonial for that purpose. I do not propose such a scheme, but it may be done with as much propriety as was the present form, some sixty or eighty years ago, and, I was going to say, with as little harm, but that fancy was not intruded with impunity. It fastened upon the Craft an error not easily removed or battled with; it created a new doctrine; established fixed prejudices; diverted a reasonable and legitimate usage, and has driven in an entering wedge, calculated under less favorable circumstances, to sever the tie uniting a Mason's tenacity to the ancient laws and customs, of the Order. The assumption of this article is that the inaugural ceremony of a Master is not a Degree; that if it is a Degree, acquiring it does not constitute one a Past Master ; that to become a Past Master, a Master has to serve out the full term to which he was elected, and that in every case where the Regulations do not expressly award the past honors to a Master for an unfinished term, he is not entitled to it by implication, but must remain in the discharge of his duties to the end of the first year of his election.

Yours in fraternal love, D.

Edicts Main Page